Speeding fines: loss of license

[Patrick]

It seems to depend alot, had a mate done for 197 in a 100 zone, he was walking home, but his car wasent impounded, lucky prick if you ask me.

41 or more kms over the speed limit, 28 day loss of licence, instant fine given.

51 or more over, dangerous speed (3 months imprisonment / $4500 fine and minimum 6months disqual at court, but no impound at the roadside...), or unneccessary display of speed - same penalties as dangerous speed, but impound of bike at roadside for 28 days too...

If a temporary speed zone ( 30 kmph roadworks for example...) loss of licence does not occur until 51kms over or more...

197kmph? Could do the impound thing, but I guess he wasn't a smart arse....

[Sanx]

51 or more over, dangerous speed

Is there any requirement to show that the speed was casuing a danger to others (as in the UK and some states in the US), or is it another case where the courts simply accept 51k over the limit must inherently be dangerous?

[scumdog]

Ok so what happens if your a long way from home (or anywhere else for that matter).

Reason I say on Monday I returned to NP from a weekend at a mates place in Tauranga. I was way out in the sticks at times, what if I was speeding at say 150Km/h ++ & got pulled over would they expect you to leave ya bike on the side of the road & hitch home???


Pfff like hell I say!!!

Go the "Like hell I say" attitude with the cop and you may well find you're left to find out how to get your bike home.

Be reasonable and as mentioned in earlier post you will be allowed to ride home/to a safe place of your choice or whatever before you get served the suspension notice.

Be as staunch as you want to be - just be prepared for an unpalatable outcome.

[scumdog]

Is there any requirement to show that the speed was casuing a danger to others (as in the UK and some states in the US), or is it another case where the courts simply accept 51k over the limit must inherently be dangerous?

Nope.
Just have to prove it "may be dangerous to any person" - and that doesn't take much.

[90s]

Nope.
Just have to prove it "may be dangerous to any person" - and that doesn't take much.

I think they can say that person is the rider theselves, based on their "speed kills" policy.

Could be wrong.

[shafty]

Go the "Like hell I say" attitude with the cop and you may well find you're left to find out how to get your bike home.

Be reasonable and as mentioned in earlier post you will be allowed to ride home/to a safe place of your choice or whatever before you get served the suspension notice.

Be as staunch as you want to be - just be prepared for an unpalatable outcome.

Dead right Scumdog, - like the Dickhead on Motorway patrol a couple of weeks back, a young Guy whose WOF and Reg were WAY out of date, so he draws attention to himself by passing a MARKED patrol car at 85 km/hr in a 50 zone, then gets all defensive - DOH!

[scumdog]

Dead right Scumdog, - like the Dickhead on Motorway patrol a couple of weeks back, a young Guy whose WOF and Reg were WAY out of date, so he draws attention to himself by passing a MARKED patrol car at 85 km/hr in a 50 zone, then gets all defensive - DOH!

The sad thing is that he's somebodys mate - very likely a somebody equally as thick!

[Boob Johnson]

Go the "Like hell I say" attitude with the cop and you may well find you're left to find out how to get your bike home.

Be reasonable and as mentioned in earlier post you will be allowed to ride home/to a safe place of your choice or whatever before you get served the suspension notice.

Be as staunch as you want to be - just be prepared for an unpalatable outcome.

Never been rude to a policemen in my life & have subsequently been let off many fines over the years, including practically getting let off when caught doing 170Km/h. I went to court & got an instant fine smaller than the max at the time, no loss of licence & was only made to re sit the theory of my licence, that's it! Reason being is I pulled over straight away, sat on the bonnet & waited for him, was polite, had a good chat about the car & the mods done (as he was interested). The courts took all this into account including the time of day, road conditions, the cars worthiness of such speed, the complete lack of cars around (other than the damn cop lol) & my attitude towards him & the situation.


All im saying is I would be pretty miffed if they would expect you to leave your precious on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere, its obviously going to get stolen. The decision to do that would never come from my attitude when I stopped. The old man always taught me if you have a run in with the law, make there job easy & they will make it as easy as possible for you

[Kinje]

Ok so what happens if your a long way from home (or anywhere else for that matter).

Reason I say on Monday I returned to NP from a weekend at a mates place in Tauranga. I was way out in the sticks at times, what if I was speeding at say 150Km/h ++ & got pulled over would they expect you to leave ya bike on the side of the road & hitch home???


Pfff like hell I say!!!

A mate had this happen and was escorted back to the nearest town where he stored his bike, and then had to make his way home from there.

I would be really uncomfortable about leaving the bike on the side of the road, so hopefully there are a lot of other understanding coppers like this one that would let you do the same if you explained your concerns.

[Sanx]

Nope.
Just have to prove it "may be dangerous to any person" - and that doesn't take much.

I think they can say that person is the rider theselves, based on their "speed kills" policy.

Could be wrong.

90s pre-empted my (rather obvious) next question. But it's an interesting case - if there's no-one around who could arguably be injured by your actions (this assumes the cop's following you), can your actions be dangerous to anyone other than yourself?

As I alluded to, this defence has succesfully been used a number of times in the US and the UK. A 21 year-old driving his dad's Porsche at 150mph in a 60mph zone was found not guilty of dangerous driving on the basis that speed alone does not imply dangerous-ness (remind me to buy the magistrate a pint some time). He still faced charges of speeding (undeniable) and driving without insurance though. Here's another one. 145mph on a motorway was not dangerous, based upon the circumstances.

In another case that led to a huge outcry in the UK, PC Mark Milton was found not guilty of speeding and dangerous driving after he was clocked at 84mph in a 30mph zone and 159mph in a 70mph zone, all whilst 'testing' his new patrol car. The judge found him not guilty as he was a highly-trained driver (please stop laughing) and that his speed did not automatically pose a danger to others. His speeding charge was dropped as there is an exemption for emergency service vehicles being used for emergency service purposes (though taking your new toy for a quick fang whilst claiming you were 'testing' it is arguably not a genuine reason). The public outcry was not the fact he'd got away with it, it was the fact he was a traffic cop and got away with it.

[Patrick]

... if there's no-one around who could arguably be injured by your actions (this assumes the cop's following you), can your actions be dangerous to anyone other than yourself?

What about the farmer who pulls out of his drive, the car that turns from a side road into your path, the kid darting out chasing a ball, the drunk pedestrian stepping out misjudging your speed, the wheel falling off your car, a blowout,.... the list goes on.....

[URL="http://www.safespeed.org.uk/milton.html"]PC Mark Milton (though taking your new toy for a quick fang whilst claiming you were 'testing' it is arguably not a genuine reason). The public outcry was not the fact he'd got away with it, it was the fact he was a traffic cop and got away with it.

I bet he is still getting strife from all the bosses about that one though....

[Sanx]

What about the farmer who pulls out of his drive

On a motorway?

the car that turns from a side road into your path

On a motorway?

the kid darting out chasing a ball

On a motorway?

the drunk pedestrian stepping out misjudging your speed

On a motorway? (OK - I can accept this one)

the wheel falling off your car, a blowout,.... the list goes on

Provided there is no-one else around, these can only harm me. But a blowout on a bike at 100kph is fairly nasty too.

OK, I'm being a little facetious with the "On a motorway?" comments, but you've actually made a good point. The judges in the cases linked to in my earlier post decided that the charge of dangerous driving wasn't justified given the conditions. And that is exactly the point I've made a number of times in other posts; speed is not dangerous, excessive speed is.

If you do 101 kph through a residential street at 4pm on a sunny school-day (like the traffic cop I reported a while back) then you should have the book thrown at you. In fact, the book, the shelf and the whole damn library. However, someone doing 151kph on a deserted highway in perfect conditions with no junctions or traffic in sight is treated the same by the law (51kph over the limit, instant loss of licence, and a date for an arse-reaming in court) but poses a far far lower risk to the general population. A safe speed is one dictated by the conditions, not one dictated by a speed limit. Automatically classing driving / riding as 'dangerous' just because a numerical threshold has been exceeded is simply daft; and the judge's decision in those cases reflected that.

[Patrick]

That is where the "MAY BE DANGEROUS " comes in... may not be, but may be... judge decides.

[avgas]

Cop told me the vehicle claim thing is just under the 'boy racer act' at which case it up to the cops discretion to take ya bike home with him. But basically he'd have to charge ya with reckless endangerment etc

[Sanx]

That is where the "MAY BE DANGEROUS " comes in... may not be, but may be... judge decides.

But that was my original question; In UnZud, does a judge have discretion to question whether or not a certain speed was dangerous based upon the conditions and circumstances, or has statute in effect decided that any speed in above a certain threshold is automatically dangerous?